W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-annotation@w3.org > January to June 2002

Re: seeAlso etc.

From: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:26:51 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20020606182625.00aee1a0@pop3.demon.co.uk>
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, <www-annotation@w3.org>

At 13:04 06/06/02 +0000, Jim Ley wrote:

>Matthew wrote:
>At 17:01 05/06/02 +0000, Jim Ley wrote:
> >>Are any Annotation Types other than comment currently implemented? It
> >>seems to me everything is a Comment.
> >
> >Really? When I was starting on Annozilla, it looked to me as though
> >everything were an Annotation, but some were also other types, eg
>Comments.
>
>All the annotations have rdf:type of a:Annotation however they also have
>a property a:annotationType of
>http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotationType#Comment
>
>Since looking in more detail, I've also found an
>http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotationType#Example
>although the actual annotations don't appear to be any different from the
>normal comments, and certainly aren't Examples and a single one of
>Question - they seem to share a addr:name/addr:firstName being identical
>aswell, so it could be from a different UA?

Annozilla can do different annotation types.

>On that might it be nice if we could trace which client made an
>attribution - at the moment I only send identifying in the http header,
>it might be nice if we included it withing the attribution itself.

I agree this would be useful, if only for identifying compatibility problems.

Matthew
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 13:26:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:19:18 GMT